A former Idaho man’s problems convincing the state of Pennsylvania he should have the right to bear arms landed in the Idaho Supreme Court today, as the justices heard an appeal from a lower-court ruling. Fourth District Judge Lynn Norton ruled in 2014 that Todd Rich had no standing to sue in Idaho for a declaration that he’s not a felon and therefore can have guns – because there’s no current dispute between Rich and the state of Idaho. He hasn’t been arrested here, nor had his gun rights challenged here.

In 1992, he was convicted of rape, a felony that does carry a permanent loss of gun rights. He was sentenced to a retained jurisdiction “rider” program, and after he successfully completed it, including six years of probation, the judge in 2004 reduced his original conviction to a misdemeanor. However, he still was required to register as a sex offender. That can’t happen any more; in 2006, Idaho changed its laws to prevent convictions on felony sex offenses from being reduced to misdemeanors. But it could in 2004, and at that time, the court order said, “The judgment is hereby deemed a misdemeanor conviction, thereby restoring the Petitioner to his civil rights.”

Now, Rich lives in Pennsylvania, and he sought clarification from the Pennsylvania State Police as to whether he has legal gun rights there. A Pennsylvania administrative law judge ruled that he was a “prohibited person” for purposes of gun rights because of his Idaho rape conviction. That ruling also brings into play federal law, preventing him from having guns in any state. So Rich filed suit in Idaho asking for a declaratory judgment saying that under Idaho law, he still has gun rights. Fourth District Lynn Norton dismissed his suit, saying he had no standing to sue.

That’s the issue that brought Rich’s attorney, Leo Griffard, and Stephanie Altig, a deputy Idaho attorney general who represents the Idaho State Police, before the justices today. “His conviction was reduced to a misdemeanor and his civil rights were restored. There’s no reference of any kind made to firearms,” Griffard told the justices. “We believe we met the requirements of standing. There has been an actual injury, because a court in another state has refused to vindicate Mr. Rich’s right to bear arms.”

Both sides also cited a case the Idaho Supreme Court decided last summer on the basis of standing, Doe v. State Sex Offender Registry, in which a Washington resident wanted to know if he’d be required to register as a sex offender in Idaho if he came to the state for work, as he was planning to do. A district court dismissed his case for lack of standing, saying he hadn’t moved to Idaho yet, but the Supreme Court overturned the ruling and found he had standing to make the request. They remanded it back to the district court, which ruled the man was required to register if he took the job – so he didn’t.

“The allegation of future injury is sufficient to confer standing,” the court found in that unanimous ruling, authored by Justice Roger Burdick. Altig argued today that Rich’s case is different, because he doesn’t have immediate plans to return to Idaho. You can read my full story here at spokesman.com.

---

---